ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 5th July 2010, 09:29 AM   #321
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,582
Originally Posted by gtm View Post
The moral of the story is to read threads more closely

9/11 investigators premise is still wrong. The naval blockade & the horrendous casualties made a German defeat inevitable irrespective of US involvement but it would have probably happened in 1919. The British & French victory in the 1918 spring offensive was very much the last straw for the Germans. They only have the man power for defensive operations after that.
That's not to say mutual exhaustion would not have ended up with some form of compromise, but that always struck me as unlikely. 1917 was the shift, with the Royal Navy finally conducting proper convoying operations, thus dramatically reducing the effect of the UBoats. Of course, if we're postulating a no-US entry, then I would argue you have to also go with a no-Unrestricted UBoat Warfare.

Into 1918 the British were ramping up tank production, and the plans for available tanks in 1919 were pretty impressive...I wish I had the figures with me, but we're talking thousands, with a sizeable (possibly majority?) being supply tanks.

Still, Spring 1918 would have been harder going without a load of fresh divisions available to plug some gaps. Then again, would Lloyd George have pulled strings to hold back on replacements without the US manpower around? Survive the spring offensives and Germany loses.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 09:46 AM   #322
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Daily Mail, the paper owned by Friend of th Nazis Lord Rothmere??


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
Captain Swoop wants to use ownership of the Daily Mail in the thirties to basically prove that these British divers did not exist at all.

English, by any chance?
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 09:47 AM   #323
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
He said so himself he was there.

Not believing Freedman would be a clear sign of blatant antisemitism and we are all glad we are not like that.
prove he was there.

and please provide evidence that "the Jews" orchistrated the attack on the Lusitania and the two other ships attacked by U-Boats, which led to America's entry into the war.

Last edited by Thunder; 5th July 2010 at 09:49 AM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 11:44 AM   #324
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,390
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Until the US came in there was a stalemate situation on the battle field.
What Dave forgets to mention is WHY the US joined.

Enter the Jews as another party in the cafe brawl.
Enter the holocaust deniers in the form of a scum sucking parasite on the back of a cockroach.
__________________
rent this space
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 11:48 AM   #325
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Enter the holocaust deniers in the form of a scum sucking parasite on the back of a cockroach.
I think that is an outrageous libel.
On parasites and cockroaches, that is.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 12:13 PM   #326
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Captain Swoop wants to use ownership of the Daily Mail in the thirties to basically prove that these British divers did not exist at all.

English, by any chance?
Are you still 'here'? Perhaps you'd be happier peddling your wares at stormfront or vnn?
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 12:21 PM   #327
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Until the US came in there was a stalemate situation on the battle field.
What Dave forgets to mention is WHY the US joined.
The USA joined because the **** ing Germans were attacking civilian ships. That's why.

It had nothin to do with the Jews, the Zionists, or the Klingons.

What proof do you have that "the Jews" somehow got the USA to join the war?

None....zero...nada....

Last edited by Thunder; 5th July 2010 at 12:23 PM.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 01:09 PM   #328
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
The USA joined because the **** ing Germans were attacking civilian ships. That's why.

It had nothin to do with the Jews, the Zionists, or the Klingons.
Try to let it sink in that the Germans were entitled to sink the Lusitania. It is not (just) me who says so but the Daily Mail, simply reporting what British divers have found. I wonder when they will start diving to the other ships.

Come to think of it, why would Germany attack ships and provoke another potential enemy into the war against them unless they have a very good reason to do so. Like preventing the British to receive ammunition?

Quote:
What proof do you have that "the Jews" somehow got the USA to join the war?

None....zero...nada....
I have the speech by Freedman.

What do you have apart from whining about sunken ships carrying contrabande?

Why would Britain give one of its colonies to the Jews without a counter favour?

Well?

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 5th July 2010 at 01:11 PM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 01:17 PM   #329
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,762
Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

[quote]The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.
Quote:
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._for_Palestine)

It was never the intention to make it a 'Colony'.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 02:00 PM   #330
Uzzy
Muse
 
Uzzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 965
You do realise that attacking ships flying American flags, regardless of it being justified or not, is a good way to get into a fight with the Americans? The US declared war on Germany due to her policy of unrestricted submarine warfare in an attempt to starve out the United Kingdom, which resulted in plenty of American ships being sunk.
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth!" Captain Jean-Luc Picard, The First Duty.
Uzzy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 03:02 PM   #331
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,260
[quote=Captain_Swoop;6097580]Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

Quote:
The British Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Palestine Mandate and the British Mandate of Palestine, was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine, the draft of which was formally confirmed by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 and which came into effect on 26 September 1923. The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British..._for_Palestine)

It was never the intention to make it a 'Colony'.
True, although you could argue that there was little practical difference between a Colony and a Mandate. The UK sure as hell seemed to expect that they would control Palestine for a long,long,time to come.
And although Japan held many of the Pacific Island chains that were to become famous in World War 2 (The Marshalls, the Marianas, the Palus, Truk,etc) as a League Mandate, when Japan left the league in 1931 it kept the islands.
Sad fact is the difference between a Mandate and Colony was the classic example of a "distinction without any real difference".
That the League never set up any kind of agency to monitor how the powers that held Mandates were governing the Mandates shoudl tell you something.

Last edited by dudalb; 5th July 2010 at 03:08 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 03:54 PM   #332
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
Is it you position the neocon Jews carried out 911?
Yep, Jews. Here my blog:

http://www.how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

Support blog:

http://911notes.blogspot.com/
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 04:02 PM   #333
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,619
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Nobody says that 'The Jews run everything', on the contrary. They do however have total control over the US and almost total control over Britain. And a very strong position in France, Australia and a few more countries. But that's it.
the jewish "control" over Australia is non existent.
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 04:18 PM   #334
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by MaGZ View Post
You must have read some Yockey.
I am aware of him, have not read Imperium though. Too esoteric rightwing even for me.

My reference points are one toe into libertarianism, another in 19th century conservatism, post-Christian, post-Holocaust, very Nietzschean, Euro-centric, Archaism (Guillaume Faye). Very anti-modern, Jew-wise, some remote sympathy for Islam (gender roles). Huntington as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Supportive of the EU (not very common for right wingers) but with the aim to transform it from within. Political/military axis Berlin-Moscow-Paris. Gladly bringing about the Death of the West.

But I agree with Yockey that America (Anglosphere rather) is far more dangerous for the future of the European race than the Soviets ever where for the simple reason that Russia is a real nation with identity able to throw off the Jewish joke by itself during the fifties. Sceptical that the deracinated American hybrid Europeans, whose only identity is that of a consumer, ever will be able to do the same. The US likely to be the next USSR, this time no longer based on economic egalitarianism and class struggle but on racial egalitarianism.

P.S. come to think of it, cannot really use Yockey as a source for the topic of this thread, but this gentleman centainly can be used:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/A...meless.War.pdf

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 5th July 2010 at 04:40 PM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 04:34 PM   #335
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
the jewish "control" over Australia is non existent.
Glad to hear that.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th July 2010, 04:38 PM   #336
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
[quote=dudalb;6097832]
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Palestine wasn't a British Colony.

True, although you could argue that there was little practical difference between a Colony and a Mandate. The UK sure as hell seemed to expect that they would control Palestine for a long,long,time to come.
Excellent. Maybe dudalb would be so kind to elaborate on why the British gave it to the Jews anyway.

We are all ears.

P.S. I already gave the answer earlier but it would be nice to hear it from the mouth of my personal (yet unpaid) advisor in all matters concerning anti-semitism.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 03:02 AM   #337
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Try to let it sink in that the Germans were entitled to sink the Lusitania.
Utter rubbish. The Germans were entitled, under international law as it stood at the time, to demand that the Lusitania stop and submit to search for contraband; only having done so and found contraband aboard, were they then entitled to take further action. Sinking the ship by torpedo without warning was a clear violation of international law whatever the cargo. If the Daily Mail says otherwise, it's simply wrong.

I suggest you take a look at Prize RulesWP on Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Prize rules state that passenger ships may not be sunk, crews of merchant ships must be placed in safety before their ships may be sunk (life boats are not considered a place of safety unless close to land), only warships and merchant ships that are a threat to the attacker may be sunk without warning.
The Lusitania, as a passenger ship that presented no threat to a submarine, could not legally be sunk either with or without warning. The German attack was a clear and unarguable violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. And, of course, the unrestricted submarine warfare that Germany planned from 1917 - part of the real cause of America's entry into the war - was even more so, as it was planned at the highest level of command.

Try to let it sink in that the sinking of the Lusitania was a war crime. There is no other possible interpretation.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 6th July 2010 at 03:04 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 03:25 AM   #338
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Come to think of it, why would Germany attack ships and provoke another potential enemy into the war against them unless they have a very good reason to do so.
Lots of people do stupid things.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 03:26 AM   #339
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,306
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post


When I've concocted my own crackpot theory about the complete revision of human and universal history, I'll let you know.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 03:44 AM   #340
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 6th July 2010 at 03:51 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 03:48 AM   #341
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The Lusitania, as a passenger ship that presented no threat to a submarine, could not legally be sunk either with or without warning. The German attack was a clear and unarguable violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

Try to let it sink in that the sinking of the Lusitania was a war crime. There is no other possible interpretation.
He simple ignores that his own countrymen discovered that the Lusitania carried millions of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill tens of thousands of Germans and hence was a legitimate target, as even the Daily Mail confesses.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:13 AM   #342
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,512
But the Germans of that time had no idea it was carrying that material. They attacked a civilian ship.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:24 AM   #343
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
But the Germans of that time had no idea it was carrying that material. They attacked a civilian ship.
Hans markets himself as a clearvoyant.

Maybe the airconditioner is not working in Bahrain?

Why would the Germans provoke the US without a good reason?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nger-ship.html
Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

See?

The real interesting questions of course are:

1) how the did Germans know that the Lusitania contained contrabande?
2) who put the contrabande in the Lusitania?

Answer-1: very likely 'leaked' intentionally to provoke the attack. I mean having the Balfour declaration in your pocket is one thing, the next problem to be solved is getting Germany into a war with the US.
Answer-2: even I am reluctant to say 'the Jews', after all the sinking of the Lusitania happened 2 years before the Balfour declaration.

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 6th July 2010 at 04:56 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:32 AM   #344
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
He simple ignores that his own countrymen discovered that the Lusitania carried millions of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill tens of thousands of Germans and hence was a legitimate target, as even the Daily Mail confesses.
There's no need to ignore any such thing. The Lusitania, as a civilian passenger ship, was not a legitimate target for an undeclared attack, and could not by law be sunk, even though her cargo is well-known to have included small arms ammunition intended for use by the British Army against the German Army. I suggest you study the Hague Conventions, which are an infinitely more authoritative source for the nature and content of international law than a poor-quality, sensationalist tabloid newspaper.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:36 AM   #345
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Thanks for the warning.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:39 AM   #346
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?
It's British,not English. The rest of the post is brainless crap too.Par for the course for an ignorant neo-nacho like you.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:43 AM   #347
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's no need to ignore any such thing. The Lusitania, as a civilian passenger ship, was not a legitimate target for an undeclared attack, and could not by law be sunk, even though her cargo is well-known to have included small arms ammunition intended for use by the British Army against the German Army. I suggest you study the Hague Conventions, which are an infinitely more authoritative source for the nature and content of international law than a poor-quality, sensationalist tabloid newspaper.

Dave
Country A delivering war material to country B, which is at war with country C, is a clear act of war of country A towards country C.

Whatever The Hague says.
(Dave has yet to prove his statement that 'The Hague' opposed the actions of the Germans without proof. I suggest Dave studies the Hague Conventions)
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:48 AM   #348
VonKleist
Muse
 
VonKleist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 685
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

Have you actually read Emrys Hughes' book? Or did you just copy-paste this quote from some website without checking whether the book's title was even correct or not?
__________________
"It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army"
- Josef Stalin (attrib.)
VonKleist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:50 AM   #349
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by garethdjb View Post
Have you actually read Emrys Hughes' book? Or did you just copy-paste this quote from some website without checking whether the book's title was even correct or not?
Ah, I see gareth has recovered from the smashing defeat against Germany!

The quote is everywhere on the internet, do you really doubt that the quote is in said book (1955)? That's a non-starter.

If I were you I would JREF-style demand 'proof' that Churchill really said it.

Meanwhile, this poster says it all:

http://www.hschamberlain.net/timeline/lusitania.jpg

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 6th July 2010 at 04:53 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 04:59 AM   #350
VonKleist
Muse
 
VonKleist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 685
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Ah, I see gareth has recovered from the smashing defeat against Germany!
Why would I be recovering? You think I am either Argentinian, English or Australian?

Quote:
The quote is everywhere on the internet, do you really doubt that the quote is in said book (1955)? That's a non-starter.
That's not what I asked. I asked if you had read the book. The edition you've just linked to has a different title to the one you copy-pasted.

Here's another quote from Emrys Hughes' book:

Quote:
In 1935 Churchill said: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I hope we could find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations".
-"Winston Churchill in war and peace" Emrys Hughes, p. 139)
__________________
"It takes a brave man not to be a hero in the Red Army"
- Josef Stalin (attrib.)
VonKleist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:06 AM   #351
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism," Churchill is quoted as saying, "but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest."

Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace" p. 145

The eternal English inferiority complex (based in reality) towards the Germans.
Still alive and kicking in English people today, cheering for the Argentinian soccer team while it plays Germany (4-0 ).

And they will even ally themselves with the biggest mass murderers in history to get the Germans down and then make up stories afterwards to make themselves look good... English.... Angelen und Sachsen themselves, 2nd hand Germans, immigrants to the British Isles from Germany after the Roman era, probably meaning losers ('huddled masses') from Germany trying to build a living elsewhere.

Don't you English understand what a deadly combination historical WW/H-word revisionism, the internet and the crumbling of the multicultural ideal will mean for the future and moral standing of your country?
What a load of unpleasant guff.

The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:11 AM   #352
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by gtm View Post
What a load of unpleasant guff.

The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.
Yes,and we don't need advice from ignorant goons like him.He should crawl back in his rat hole,just like his glorious Fuhrer did.

Last edited by dafydd; 6th July 2010 at 05:12 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:16 AM   #353
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As for why America got involved, I'd just like to suggest that the greatest disappointment in history for the conspiracy theorist must be the comprehensive admission by the German government that the Zimmerman telegram was genuine. Still, Zimmerman sounds Jewish, and I'm sure that's all that counts.
Zimmerman does not sound Jewish at all, but refers to an honest 'Aryan' occupation: Carpenter. Jewish names often refer to money: Goldman, Silverstein, Rubin, Pearl, Safire, Lendman, etc.

Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.

Thanks in advance!

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 6th July 2010 at 05:18 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:17 AM   #354
9/11-investigator
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,032
Originally Posted by gtm View Post
The future & moral standing of my country is in good hands thanks very much. You shouldn't worry about us - we've got it covered.

Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?

gtm informed us earlier:

Quote:
...As an Englishman of party jewish descent...

Last edited by 9/11-investigator; 6th July 2010 at 05:20 AM.
9/11-investigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:19 AM   #355
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Zimmerman does not sound Jewish at all, but refers to an honest 'Aryan' occupation: Carpenter. Jewish names often refer to money: Goldman, Silverstein, Rubin, Pearl, Safire, etc.

Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.

Thanks in advance!
You really are so ignorant,and as another Jewish Zimmerman once sang,''It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe.''
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:21 AM   #356
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?
Don't be so stupid.Scotland and Wales are part of Britain.Still,we are getting used to supplementing your meagre knowledge.Stick around,you might learn something.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:23 AM   #357
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Country A delivering war material to country B, which is at war with country C, is a clear act of war of country A towards country C.
Nope. It has always been recognised in international law that neutral countries may supply war material to combatants and that this is not a hostile act. Again, check the Hague Conventions.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Whatever The Hague says.
(Dave has yet to prove his statement that 'The Hague' opposed the actions of the Germans without proof. I suggest Dave studies the Hague Conventions)
It sounds to me like you know virtually nothing about international law, and are hoping not to be caught out.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:25 AM   #358
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Nope. It has always been recognised in international law that neutral countries may supply war material to combatants and that this is not a hostile act. Again, check the Hague Conventions.



It sounds to me like you know virtually nothing about international lawanything, and are hoping not to be caught out.

Dave
Fixed
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:26 AM   #359
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Interesting, this Zimmerman telegram. Could you elaborate about it? As I said I am here also to learn new things about WW1.
http://tinyurl.com/3xqas4l

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2010, 05:28 AM   #360
gtm
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 620
Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator View Post
Not sure if you refer to Israel or England (are Scotland and Wales still part of the British empire?)?

gtm informed us earlier:
We do have jewish british citizens - the two things are not mutually exclusive. In the Netherlands you used to have a vibrant jewish community. We all know what happened to them.

I'm not Jewish (my mother wasn't one) but yes I have jewish antecedents via my fathers family.
gtm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.